TTP5.01 Falciformopexy as an Alternative to Omentopexy in Perforated Peptic Ulcer Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) repair commonly utilizes omentopexy, but anatomical constraints may require alternative techniques such as falciformopexy. This systematic review and meta-analysis compare the efficacy and safety of falciformopexy versus omentopexy in PPU repair. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted across Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies on falciformopexy and omentopexy in adult PPU patients. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for binary and continuous outcomes. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results Three retrospective cohort studies (n=1089) of good quality were included. Falciformopexy resulted in significantly shorter surgical duration (WMD -7.56 minutes, 95% CI -12.47 to -2.65, P=0.003) and hospitalization (WMD -1.43 days, 95% CI -2.29 to -0.57, P=0.001) compared to omentopexy. However, it was associated with a significantly higher risk of leakage (RR 2.65, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.79, P=0.04) and post-operative ileus (RR 2.85, 95% CI 1.13 to 7.2, P=0.03). No significant differences were found in mortality, re-operation rates, pneumonia, evisceration, or wound infection. Conclusion Falciformopexy may offer advantages in reducing surgical duration and hospitalization length for PPU repair but presents an increased risk of leakage and post-operative ileus. While it serves as a feasible alternative when omentopexy is not viable, further large-scale, randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings and guide clinical decision-making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".